Update: Texas Dad Beats His Daughter’s Molester to Death *Post 286*

[Cajuncowboy]

Those of you saying you wouldn't lose sleep over it probably have never taken a life.

Humans are not programmed to do it through evolution. Yes there are people who like to kill but they usually end up in prison or dead themselves.

Deep down we don't want to kill someone.

I understand that most of you are posting solely on emotion and while you might not regret doing it, you would likely still face the ugly truth that you ended someone's life even if you felt justified in doing it, and likely would have to seek some counselling to deal with it.

Who said they "wanted" to take a life? It's just some of us understands that some people need to be held accountable. And so if someone does something like what this guy did and he got the justice he deserved why would the person dealing the justice be concerned about it?

Again, I wouldn't worry for a second if I were in that position.

 

[vta]

All that will do is prevent them from fathering a child and possibly getting an erection. It will not necessarily prevent a sexual assault.

Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves, do you want your justice system to have penalties along the same vein?

I'd have to agree with you here. If we're going to take strong measure, it'd be better to execute than frigging maiming for life and have someone walking around with resentment.

I have no interest in this country engaging in draconian measures of torture like SA or any other nut-job nation.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Who said they "wanted" to take a life? It's just some of us understands that some people need to be held accountable. And so if someone does something like what this guy did and he got the justice he deserved why would the person dealing the justice be concerned about it?

Again, I wouldn't worry for a second if I were in that position.

you haven't killed anyone or been the cause of anyone's death so how can you really say what your response would be?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

you haven't killed anyone or been the cause of anyone's death so how can you really say what your response would be?

You know that, how?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You know that, how?

because I am sure you would have told us

 

[cowboy_ron]

All that will do is prevent them from fathering a child and possibly getting an erection. It will not necessarily prevent a sexual assault.

Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves, do you want your justice system to have penalties along the same vein?

I bet a lot of thought goes into it before they steal anything over there

 

[Cajuncowboy]

because I am sure you would have told us

Why would anyone brag about something like that?

 

[jnday]

All that will do is prevent them from fathering a child and possibly getting an erection. It will not necessarily prevent a sexual assault.

Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves, do you want your justice system to have penalties along the same vein?

I bet Saudi Arabia has a low crime rate. We could take a few tips from them. If you want your hands, don't steal. It's as simple as that. The Western society has become more concerned about criminal rights rather than victim rights.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I bet Saudi Arabia has a low crime rate. We could take a few tips from them. If you want your hands, don't steal. It's as simple as that. The Western society has become more concerned about criminal rights rather than victim rights.

they also don't let women go to the store alone, stone adulterers and flog people, do you want to live in a barbaric state like that?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Another thing to consider, as to why the grand jury didn't indict him, is that if they do indict him and, even if he is punished or not, it sends a message to molesters everywhere that this is ok... that you can do this, even in front of the parents and have protection of "vigilante justice" and they can rape your child right in front of you. And if you do anything, you'll be punished. I'm so glad the system worked this time....

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Another thing to consider, as to why the grand jury didn't indict him, is that if they do indict him and, even if he is punished or not, it sends a message to molesters everywhere that this is ok... that you can do this, even in front of the parents and have protection of "vigilante justice" and they can rape your child right in front of you. And if you do anything, you'll be punished. I'm so glad the system worked this time....

How would an indictment have meant you could rape a child in front of the parents? That is ********.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

How would an indictment have meant you could rape a child in front of the parents? That is ********.

Again, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. It would have set a precedent for other grand juries to base their decisions in a similar way for similar cases with similar sets of circumstances. You, of all people, should know that.

 

[jnday]

they also don't let women go to the store alone, stone adulterers and flog people, do you want to live in a barbaric state like that?

I tend to agree with many forms of punishment that they use. They actually make people sorry that broke the law. Living in a place with such punishment would not be a problem for me.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

they also don't let women go to the store alone, stone adulterers and flog people, do you want to live in a barbaric state like that?

Some people need a good flogging.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Again, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. It would have set a precedent for other grand juries to base their decisions in a similar way for similar cases with similar sets of circumstances. You, of all people, should know that.

Yeah, let's see, we indict someone because they might have broken a law and gone too far in preventing sexual assaul and we want a jury to decide if he or she did go far, equals,you can rape a child in front of his/her parents?

I reiterate, that is ******** logic.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I tend to agree with many forms of punishment that they use. They actually make people sorry that broke the law. Living in a place with such punishment would not be a problem for me.

would you like to be stoned to death for getting some on the side? isn't that barbaric?

 

[wittenacious]

would you like to be stoned to death for getting some on the side? isn't that barbaric?

Me. No, I wouldn't like it. But how is that the point?

IF I knowingly broke the law and mores of the land I live in, knowing that if caught by those who would take GREAT offense at my actions ... in this case, ESPECIALLY if caught by the father of the 5-year old girl I/ HE was raping ... I would most certainly expect to have my life attacked and very possibly snuffed out, sooner rather than later!

Stoning is just one form of punishment and death isn't always the worst fate, but it is very often a fate both deserved and meted out, in the heat of the moment or otherwise.

And "getting some on the side?" Poor example. Incredibly insensitive reference to try to use to make a point, especially in light of what actually happened to an innocent child. Poor stance to take on this subject, IMO. Can't you see you're fighting a losing battle?

Give it up, already.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yeah, let's see, we indict someone because they might have broken a law and gone too far in preventing sexual assaul and we want a jury to decide if he or she did go far, equals,you can rape a child in front of his/her parents?

I reiterate, that is ******** logic.

Ironic. I seriously think you just talk a lot of trash. Based on this view, I'm guessing you missed most of you law classes. If the guy is tried, it does set a precedent. Why this is lost on you is baffling. Unless........


Back on topic.If another dad kills a molester they could look back at this indictment. And some county with less sense may actually indict some pervert in the future. The fact they didn't indict him informs us of how a grand jury may interpret the deadly force laws.

 

[casmith07]

This isn't really vigilante justice. This is "self" defence (obviously defence of his daughter but whatever). Vigilante justice is if heard the story second hand and then goes to kill the guy the next day. This is stopping an act of sexual violence while it is being committed.

You had it somewhat correct -- it's defense of others.

 

[casmith07]

Yeah, let's see, we indict someone because they might have broken a law and gone too far in preventing sexual assaul and we want a jury to decide if he or she did go far, equals,you can rape a child in front of his/her parents?

I reiterate, that is ******** logic.

The burden of proof rests with the government. If the government was not able to show probable cause, then the jury has a duty to return with no indictment.

Thems be the breaks in the USA.